Date post: | 29-Jan-2018 |
Category: |
Internet |
Upload: | pablo-aragon |
View: | 622 times |
Download: | 1 times |
1
To Thread or Not to Thread The Impact of Conversation Threading
on Online Discussion
Pablo Aragón*‡, Vicenç Gómez*, Andreas Kaltenbrunner‡
* Universitat Pompeu Fabra‡ Eurecat, Technology Centre of Catalonia
The 11th International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (ICWSM-17) — Montreal. May 16-18, 2017
Online communities
● Members interact with each other primarily via the Internet
● They are commonly built by strangers
● Online discussion is an essential mechanism of both communication and collaboration
2
ICWSM-17 — Montreal, Apr 16-18, 2017
Reciprocity in online communities
● Many members do reciprocate support (Wellman et al, 1999)
● A behavioral indicator for their emergence (Herring et al, 2004)
● A sign of an inward focus and vigorous debate (Fisher et al, 2006)
● An indicator of captivating/engaging communication (Rafaeli et al, 1997)
3
ICWSM-17 — Montreal, Apr 16-18, 2017
Hierarchical
Messages are
arranged close to
their replies in a
tree-like structure
making reciprocal
interactions
explicit
Linear
Messages are
presented in order
(chronological)
regardless of
reply
relationships
Conversation threading (or not)
4
ICWSM-17 — Montreal, Apr 16-18, 2017
Does conversation threading matter? How can we model its impact on online discussion?
5
ICWSM-17 — Montreal, Apr 16-18, 2017
Related work
Conversation threading
● provides better local context (Venolia et al, 2003)
● mitigates the ‘co-text’ loss problem (Fuks et al, 2006)
users are better distinguish the earlier message to which a particular message replies to
● favors knowledge construction (McVerry, 2007)
6
ICWSM-17 — Montreal, Apr 16-18, 2017
Related work
Generative models to characterize the structural properties of online discussion threads
● Usenet, Yahoo Groups, Twitter (Kumar et al, 2010)
● Digg, Reddit, Epinions (Wang et al, 2012)
● Slashdot, Barrapunto, Menéame, Wikipedia (Gómez et al, 2013)
7
ICWSM-17 — Montreal, Apr 16-18, 2017
Research gap
● Previous studies of conversation threading
○ were based on small groups of recruited participants
○ never included a modeling approach
● State-of-the-art generative models of online discussion
○ failed to capture the deep structures of discussion threads
○ never incorporated reciprocity as a feature
8
ICWSM-17 — Montreal, Apr 16-18, 2017
Research questions
RQ1 How does conversation threading affect reciprocity withinthe discussion of an online community?
RQ2 Is reciprocity a key behavioral feature when modeling thestructure and growth of discussion threads?
RQ3 How does conversation threading affect the behavioralfeatures when modeling the structure and growth of discussion threads?
9
ICWSM-17 — Montreal, Apr 16-18, 2017
Menéame: a unique case-study
● The most popular Spanish social news site
● Online community of thousands of users who daily debate hundreds of stories
● Conversation threading was adopted in Jan 2015
10
ICWSM-17 — Montreal, Apr 16-18, 2017
Until Jan 2015 Since Jan 2015
Dataset description
72,005 stories and 5,385,324 comments (2011-2015)
11
ICWSM-17 — Montreal, Apr 16-18, 2017
Measuring conversation threading effects
12
ICWSM-17 — Montreal, Apr 16-18, 2017
Reciprocity in the network of users of each thread
Standard Reciprocity
Corrected reciprocity (Garlaschelli et al, 2004)
Weighted reciprocity (Squartini et al, 2013)
13
ICWSM-17 — Montreal, Apr 16-18, 2017
Regression discontinuity design
Statistical analysis of platform effects (Malik et al, 2016):
“The design and technical features of a given platform which constrain, distort, and shape user behavior on that platform”
14
ICWSM-17 — Montreal, Apr 16-18, 2017
Results
Reciprocity increases with conversation threading (Jan 2015)
15
ICWSM-17 — Montreal, Apr 16-18, 2017
Modeling reciprocal online discussions
16
ICWSM-17 — Montreal, Apr 16-18, 2017
Thread visualization tool (Aragón et al, 2016)
Exploration of discussion threads
Thread in 2013 Thread in 2015 (linear view) (hierarchical view) 17
ICWSM-17 — Montreal, Apr 16-18, 2017
Generative models of discussion threadsExtension of Goméz et al (2013)
Popularity (α) Comments with many replies aremore appealing (pref. attachment)
Root bias (β) Distinction between the post (the initial node) and the comments
Novelty (τ) Old comments gradually become lessattractive than new ones
Reciprocity (κ) Users tend to comment replies to their previous comments
18
ICWSM-17 — Montreal, Apr 16-18, 2017
Results: Performance
The generative model including reciprocity better reproduces the typical deep structures of online discussion threads
19
ICWSM-17 — Montreal, Apr 16-18, 2017
Results: Behavioural features
The behavioural features undergo an notable increase when conversation threading is released (Jan 2015)
20
ICWSM-17 — Montreal, Apr 16-18, 2017
Conclusion, limitations and future work
21
ICWSM-17 — Montreal, Apr 16-18, 2017
Conclusion
RQ1 How does conversation threading affect reciprocity within the discussion of an online community?
Although reciprocity naturally increases over time, there is an additional boost when conversation threading is adopted
Positive indicator for online communities
22
ICWSM-17 — Montreal, Apr 16-18, 2017
Conclusion
RQ2 Is reciprocity a key behavioral feature when modeling the structure and growth of discussion threads?
The new generative model, with reciprocity, reproduces more accurately the depth of discussion threads
Better characterization of online discussion dynamics
23
ICWSM-17 — Montreal, Apr 16-18, 2017
Conclusion
RQ3 How does conversation threading affect the behavioral features when modeling the structure and growth of discussion threads?
More reciprocal behavior, popular comments are even moreattractive, and the decay of novelty slows down
Menéame does not apply comment folding
The first comments receive larger attention24
ICWSM-17 — Montreal, Apr 16-18, 2017
Our methodology is language-independent:
● can be easily applied to any other platform,
● but ignores content-based features
Exploration of how conversation threading might affect:
● the hierarchical distribution of topics (Weninger et al, 2013)
● linguistic indications of reciprocity (Althoff et al, 2014)
Limitations and future work
25
ICWSM-17 — Montreal, Apr 16-18, 2017
Althoff, T., Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, C., & Jurafsky, D. (2014). How to Ask for a Favor: A Case Study on the Success of Altruistic Requests. In Eighth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media.
Aragón, P., Gómez, V., & Kaltenbrunner, A. (2016). Visualization Tool for Collective Awareness in a Platform of Citizen Proposals. In Tenth International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media.
Fisher, D., Smith, M., & Welser, H. T. (2006). You are who you talk to: Detecting roles in usenet newsgroups. In System Sciences, 2006. HICSS'06. Proceedings of the 39th Annual Hawaii International Conference on (Vol. 3, pp. 59b-59b). IEEE.
Fuks, H., Pimentel, M., & Pereira de Lucena, C. J. (2006). RU-Typing-2-Me? Evolving a chat tool to increase understanding in learning activities. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(1), 117-142.
Garlaschelli, D., & Loffredo, M. I. (2004). Patterns of link reciprocity in directed networks. Physical review letters, 93(26), 268701.
References
26
ICWSM-17 — Montreal, Apr 16-18, 2017
Gómez, V., Kappen, H. J., Litvak, N., & Kaltenbrunner, A. (2013). A likelihood-based framework for the analysis of discussion threads. World Wide Web, 16(5-6), 645-675.
Herring, S. C., Barab, S., Kling, R., & Gray, J. (2004). An approach to researching online behavior. Designing for virtual communities in the service of learning, 338.
Kumar, R., Mahdian, M., & McGlohon, M. (2010). Dynamics of conversations. In Proceedings of the 16th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining (pp. 553-562). ACM.
Malik, M. M., & Pfeffer, J. (2016). Identifying Platform Effects in Social Media Data. In Tenth International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media.
McVerry, J. G. (2007). Forums and functions of threaded discussions. New England Reading Association Journal, 43(1), 79.
Rafaeli, S., & Sudweeks, F. (1997). Networked interactivity. Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, 2(4).
References
27
ICWSM-17 — Montreal, Apr 16-18, 2017
Squartini, T., Picciolo, F., Ruzzenenti, F., & Garlaschelli, D. (2013). Reciprocity of weighted networks. Scientific reports, 3, 2729.
Venolia, G. D., & Neustaedter, C. (2003). Understanding sequence and reply relationships within email conversations: a mixed-model visualization. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 361-368). ACM.
Wang, C., Ye, M., & Huberman, B. A. (2012). From user comments to on-line conversations. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining (pp. 244-252). ACM.
Wellman, B., & Gulia, M. (1999). : Virtual communities as communities. Networks in the global village, 331-366.
Weninger, T., Zhu, X. A., & Han, J. (2013). An exploration of discussion threads in social news sites: A case study of the reddit community. In Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (pp. 579-583). ACM.
References
28
ICWSM-17 — Montreal, Apr 16-18, 2017